Last year the Democratic Leadership in Congress determined that they did not want to give the Pentagon their full $196.4 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, so they appropriated $88.3 billion instead, expecting that as the public grew more tired with Iraq, and in an election year, a Spring debate would put the Republicans on the defensive and possibly mean more scrutiny of Pentagon activities and spending. It is now Spring and it is clear that this strategy has failed.

This is the Democrats’ plan for the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental they will be putting together this month: First, give the Pentagon all of the remaining funds that they had requested for this fiscal year ($108.1 billion).  Second, give them another $70 billion for the next fiscal year and call it a “Bridge Fund” so that there will be no more Iraq funding debates in Congress this year, or more importantly, before the election.  Finally, add a lot of domestic spending for infrastructure projects and other priorities to this “emergency” supplemental spending bill so that they will not be counted against the budget caps.  Can someone please tell me why we were so excited that the Democrats were taking control of Congress after the 2006 elections?

This is the strategy of wimps.  I am not one to suggest that the Democrats not pass any funding for Iraq — while we should pull out, we also should not make things worse while we must stay because of the Veto pen sitting in the Oval Office.  It is obvious that the Democrats are afraid of being labelled as disloyal to “the troops” in an election year, even though polls show that a large majority of the country want the troops to come home. But if the congressional Democrats really wanted to change the course in the short-run, they would do more than acquiesce to the the Administration’s request and try to cover it up with domestic spending goodies.  If I were in Congress my strategy over Iraq spending would include:

1. Don’t give the Pentagon its entire request.  There is definitely concern as to how much money that the Pentagon has requested that it actually needs,  Besides reports of billions of dollars that appear to either be missing or somehow unaccounted, there is of course the budget for contractors that are providing security at a much higher cost and salary than soldiers get, there are general services such as food and transport that my guess could be given a more thorough vetting, and there are other contracts that we probably don’t even know about.  I would shift more funding towards Afghanistan as that country’s security situation is declining and can be addressed by greater attention from the U.S. If this means that another funding bill must be debated in September or October, so be it.  The Democrats should not fear this debate.
2. Tie funding to benchmarks — don’t give it all at once.These appropriations are generally appropriated in whole to the Pentagon, and then is distributed among the various arenas under their jurisdiction at their discretion.  Instead, tie certain pockets of funding to meeting benchmarks, both those of the Iraqi government and those of the U.S. mission in Iraq. For example, reconstruction funds could be tied to certain reconciliation actions by the Maliki government.  Certain funds for the U.S. military could be tied to an independent assessment as to how well they are doing in creating and training an Iraqi army and police force.  There are many, many possibilities and ways to hold the Pentagon accountable.  So far there has been little accountability demanded from them.
3. Demand critical studies and reports. Independent studies and reports do two things — they focus those involved on those issues that are being examined, and they create a deadline for getting certain information.  Studies I would like to see include: An examination of how employees were chosen for jobs in the Green Zone, their competency, and how much political ideology played a role; Whether service contractors are addressing the needs and safety of the troops first, or their profits first; A Report on various strategies and timelines for removing troops from Iraq — as well as the military and political consequences of each scenario.  Studies like these, with different due dates, would keep these issues in the news, as well as provide essential information for the next President.
4. Split the Bill into Pieces. Republicans and certain conservative Democrats hate this idea — they want the debate to involve as few votes as possible, but the more votes there are, the more accountability there is for our elected representatives.  First, carve out Afghanistan funding.  It is a different operation and shouldn’t be tied to Iraq.  Second, carve out military operations from reconstruction and service contracting.  The public should see how much of each category is eating up government funds, and each should have its own debate.

So that in essence what a real strategy would be — even one that keeps troops in Iraq under the Petraeus plan.  It is not as much as many on the left would want, but we need to consider the current political environment and try to do what is possible.  What should not be done is what congressional Democrats appear to be doing — acting like Republicans.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: